Welcome to the PokéCommunity!

Hi there! Thanks for visiting PokéCommunity. We’re a group of Pokémon fans dedicated to providing the best place on the Internet for discussing ideas and sharing fan-made content. Welcome! We’re glad you’re here.

In order to join our community we need you to create an account with us. Doing so will allow you to make posts, submit and view fan art and fan fiction, download fan-made games, and much more. It’s quick and easy; just click here and follow the instructions.

We’re on social media!

The Round TableHave a seat at the Round Table for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be.
Come be a knight.

Abortion should be legal under any circumstance. I'm not going to sit here and argue whether a fetus is a legitimate life. I believe that it is not until birth, but that's just a totally different aspect.

Whether or not you believe that the fetus is a life, it is part of the woman's body above all. And men and women both have the right to do with their own bodies as they please. It's a right and no one has the right to take it away from a woman, especially a man who can't even legitimately understand what it's like to be pregnant or give birth or how a child can affect your life. A lot of times the woman was raped or the pregnancy was unplanned, so the father leaves.

Does a woman in her third trimester have, or should have the right to abort the fetus? Since you have stated it's not legitimate life until after birth rather than the viability period which is after the fetus has developed to a certain stage.

Another legal concern is moderate to heavy drinking of alcoholic substances (not the occasional glass of wine with dinner) in pregnant women. There are no laws that prohibit pregnant women from drinking, though there may be some state laws I am not aware of outside of my state. If a woman plans on having the baby, then it's not only her body that she is affecting with the alcoholic substance and illicit drugs (prescription drug abuse). Though some would argue that, as individuals, we should be allowed to make our own personal choices regarding our bodies, some of our choices affect others' rights. If a woman has decided to carryout the pregnancy, and by the viability period, she must carry the it to term, there should be safeguards for the conduct aforementioned.

Not only do some drugs and alcoholic beverages affect the child during development, the government and taxpayers are then burdened by the poor decision in financing the medical care for the child that could have otherwise been avoided without the poor "personal" choices the mother had made about her own body. Women should not have the right, in all cases to make decisions that affect their own body, especially when these choices have negative impacts on other people.

Beyond the viability period, the point of no return, as well as a need for restrictions of risky health behaviors aforementioned, abortions should almost always be permitted for financial reasons alone. Abortions save the state so much money each year that would have otherwise been allocated as entitlements to those who don't have the financial means to provide for the child, entitlements that could cost the state for 17 additional years per child.

An interesting policy to consider is sterilization of men and women who have multiple children without any sort of way of financing for the childrens' needs. How and should we regulate how many children people are having? Or if their children have been taken out of their home, should these individuals be allowed to have more children? I can see how restricting reproductive rights to those who are not law abiding citizens or have more children then they can support financially could be justifiably limited as those decisions, again, affect more than just the individual; the decisions affect their children and the taxpayers when they make these poor judgments.

This issue should be tackled with state interests and the general welfare of the state rather than arbitrary rights such as reproductive rights for the sake of reproductive rights. It is usually the case though that these rights match-up with state interests in aspects of abortion. Though, as mentioned, these arbitrary rights should not be the dominant discourse when personal choices of one's reproductive health negatively affects the general welfare.

Does a woman in her third trimester have, or should have the right to abort the fetus? Since you have stated it's not legitimate life until after birth rather than the viability period which is after the fetus has developed to a certain stage.

Another legal concern is moderate to heavy drinking of alcoholic substances (not the occasional glass of wine with dinner) in pregnant women. There are no laws that prohibit pregnant women from drinking, though there may be some state laws I am not aware of outside of my state. If a woman plans on having the baby, then it's not only her body that she is affecting with the alcoholic substance and illicit drugs (prescription drug abuse). Though some would argue that, as individuals, we should be allowed to make our own personal choices regarding our bodies, some of our choices affect others' rights. If a woman has decided to carryout the pregnancy, and by the viability period, she must carry the it to term, there should be safeguards for the conduct aforementioned.

Not only do some drugs and alcoholic beverages affect the child during development, the government and taxpayers are then burdened by the poor decision in financing the medical care for the child that could have otherwise been avoided without the poor "personal" choices the mother had made about her own body. Women should not have the right, in all cases to make decisions that affect their own body, especially when these choices have negative impacts on other people.

Beyond the viability period, the point of no return, as well as a need for restrictions of risky health behaviors aforementioned, abortions should almost always be permitted for financial reasons alone. Abortions save the state so much money each year that would have otherwise been allocated as entitlements to those who don't have the financial means to provide for the child, entitlements that could cost the state for 17 additional years per child.

An interesting policy to consider is sterilization of men and women who have multiple children without any sort of way of financing for the childrens' needs. How and should we regulate how many children people are having? Or if their children have been taken out of their home, should these individuals be allowed to have more children? I can see how restricting reproductive rights to those who are not law abiding citizens or have more children then they can support financially could be justifiably limited as those decisions, again, affect more than just the individual; the decisions affect their children and the taxpayers when they make these poor judgments.

This issue should be tackled with state interests and the general welfare of the state rather than arbitrary rights such as reproductive rights for the sake of reproductive rights. It is usually the case though that these rights match-up with state interests in aspects of abortion. Though, as mentioned, these arbitrary rights should not be the dominant discourse when personal choices of one's reproductive health negatively affects the general welfare.

Personally, I hate the idea of abortion, but I find that it's a better alternative to raising a child in a home that cannot mentally or physically support it. Women should have the right to choose when they have a child, even if they were irresponsible and got pregnant because they weren't using protection. Some women do not have the choice of contraception because they're poor; is it really our right to tell them they can't have sex just because they could get pregnant? Sex is one of the rights of being a human being that should not...and cannot...be taken away, regardless of economic status, race, or religion. There should always be another option for women.

Some people claim that it's cruel to kill the unborn child, but is it any less cruel to let them live in a home where they are unwanted or so poor that they have little to no future? Ask yourself that before you condemn abortion as cruel and unusual punishment.

Personally, I hate the idea of abortion, but I find that it's a better alternative to raising a child in a home that cannot mentally or physically support it. Women should have the right to choose when they have a child, even if they were irresponsible and got pregnant because they weren't using protection. Some women do not have the choice of contraception because they're poor; is it really our right to tell them they can't have sex just because they could get pregnant? Sex is one of the rights of being a human being that should not...and cannot...be taken away, regardless of economic status, race, or religion. There should always be another option for women.

Some people claim that it's cruel to kill the unborn child, but is it any less cruel to let them live in a home where they are unwanted or so poor that they have little to no future? Ask yourself that before you condemn abortion as cruel and unusual punishment.

Sensible Reproduction rights (access to abortion, other forms of contraception, family planning, etc) are a cornerstone of an enlightened society. Roe V. Wade is a landmark decision and it's not going away. (Given that we could have 11 more years of Democrats in the White House, which what we're headed towards. Meaning, the Supreme Court will swing left.)

Sensible Reproduction rights (access to abortion, other forms of contraception, family planning, etc) are a cornerstone of an enlightened society. Roe V. Wade is a landmark decision and it's not going away. (Given that we could have 11 more years of Democrats in the White House, which what we're headed towards. Meaning, the Supreme Court will swing left.)

Given that at least half of the human population is addicted to sex (at least that's what I think, anyway) I would support abortion, given the circumstances. I personally would recommend that they actually hold off of sex until they're actually ready to have a child, & are willing to put in the investments needed for one. If a couple does conceive, & during mid-flight, they decide they want to bail on having a child, I'd say, "Go on right ahead, I won't stop you."

As Silais said earlier, abortion is sometimes like mercy, when a child is brought into this world in the most dismal & grim of households, all because the mother wanted to keep the child. Very selfish, I should say...

"But... my child is precious to me!!"

Oh, really? Then it should tear at your heart to watch powerlessly as your child ends up dying a slow, painful death from starvation/sickness because you've bought him/her in a hazardous, disease-ridden environment. I swear, some of these so-called, "moms" let their maternal instincts take over all their brain functions at times...

This is an emotional issue for many people. Here are my thoughts on the subject:

While I do not myself like the idea of abortion, I think it's a choice that should continue to be available. The truth is, not every woman wants a child, has the means to support one or is cut out for being a parent. You can't just tell people "don't have sex" that never works. People are going to have sex, and sometimes, unwanted pregnancies happen. There is contraception, but not everyone has access and sometimes birth control fails. I think it isn't up to anyone except the woman if she wants to have an abortion. Abortion is a choice people make,and I can't imagine it is an easy decision to make. Not everyone who thinks about having one goes through with it, women can also choose to keep the child or put them up for adoption, but I still think it should be an option.

Something interesting I read not too long ago, an argument for why abortion should be allowed: Up to a certain point of development an embryo/zygote/fetus/baby/etc. can't feel pain and therefore can't suffer or feel pleasure. Being unable to suffer means it can't even show the most basic preference for one thing or another. Everything is equal. It's essentially a lump of living human stuff, but completely unaware and unthinking. It's not that we can't know if it wants to live, it can't have a desire to be alive in the first place. The only desire to keep it living is in other people so then it becomes a matter of whose desire is more important, which would most likely be the woman with the embryo/fetus/baby.

Quote originally posted by Fenneking:

An interesting policy to consider is sterilization of men and women who have multiple children without any sort of way of financing for the childrens' needs. How and should we regulate how many children people are having? Or if their children have been taken out of their home, should these individuals be allowed to have more children? I can see how restricting reproductive rights to those who are not law abiding citizens or have more children then they can support financially could be justifiably limited as those decisions, again, affect more than just the individual; the decisions affect their children and the taxpayers when they make these poor judgments.

This is an interesting question. I would think that, ideally, we wouldn't restrict people from making choices about their reproduction, but that would be in an ideal world were there wasn't lots of poverty and starvation among children and there would be a lot more support for everyone who has children.

Quote originally posted by umbryan:

All that and I can't figure out whether you're Pro-Life or Pro-Choice lol

And, ya know, that's not a bad thing. We get caught up in "pro-life" and "pro-choice" identifiers that it makes it hard to have discussions that don't spiral out of control. If I say "I'm pro-choice" someone who thinks of themselves as "pro-life" may disregard everything I say based on my identification, and I may do the same in reverse.

In my eyes, it's breathing, but it's not fully functional. Therefore, it shouldn't be forced to have a crappy life. Like normally if you were going to have an abortion, you couldn't give the child the happiness it deserves and if I have a kid, I want to be able to support it. If you can't support a kid, then either abortion or adoption will work. Adoption is also bad, cause god knows what would happen to your kid after that.

Well I'm gonna post my opinion of abortion, how I feel about it and how it could affect my life.

First of all I dislike the idea of aborting a life, even if it's considered "for the better." Put aside religious beliefs and that of it like that baby inside of a woman COULD be a child, it has the chance to be alive and have a future, regardless of whether or not you wish to be a parent of that child or whether or not it is biologically yours in the first place. You're playing God by choosing whether it lives or dies.
Do we have the right to make that decision ?
I don't feel I have the right to make that decision.
Personally if I have protective sex, I should know that the chance of a child coming from it could be a small percentage, but it is there. I should be responsible and know that if I get a woman pregnant, then I should take care of my child and support the upbringing of it. Regardless of my situation, I should do what's best for my children.

Do the majority of young people have that sort of attitude or think about that when they have sex for the first time ?

What if I get a woman pregnant and she wants to abort the baby ? Do I have the right as a father to stop that abortion or does she get the say because it's growing inside of her ?

There are so many contraceptive methods out there such as the pill, condoms, injections and implants which can help men and women from making a child. It's not difficult to wear a condom or take the pill. Even sterilization operations can prevent children being made all together.

I found an interesting thought about when people say "any circumstance". What if the woman is 3 days overdue?

Sorry I don't have much to contribute, but I heard that a few days ago and I've been particularly torn over it.

__________________

"And here we tinker with metal, to try to give it a kind of life, and suffer those who would scoff at our efforts. But who's to say that, if intelligence had evolved in some other form in past millennia, the ancestors of these beings would not now scoff at the idea of intelligence residing within meat?" - Prime Function Aki Zeta-5, "The Fallacies of Self-Awareness"

Being torn over an issue is actually a good sign in that it demonstrates that you are allowing yourself to assess a variety of perspectives and information without being static and set on a viewpoint.

I have always been torn on this issue as well since many of the arguments were not satisfying, on both major platforms, but eventually I came to my own conclusion, that is definitely open to adjustment and expansion to other similar dilemma's related to this issue.

Also, I enjoyed what Scarf had to say. Being on a "side" isn't necessary to having a valid viewpoint. Really, it shows that there has been some form of personal assessment of the various factual and philosophical information regarding the issue, or any given issue.

Even the Supreme Court rulings have been quite vexing for myself. Though I agree with the ultimate end of legalization and fewer restrictions on abortion, the Roe v Wade decision and follow-up cases regarding reproductive rights has a very convoluted reasoning applying the fourth amendment to privacy rights, zone of privacy, undue burden, ect. among other elements of Constitutional Law. It's this legal gray area that leaves these sorts of cases with 5-4 decisions since there doesn't exist a standard way to apply circumstances with broad rights afforded by the Bill of Rights. The Court doesn't delve into public policy, would address more than "rights of the woman" but rather assess the value of public policy and its effects on the populace. For this reason, it seems like the right to an abortion shouldn't really fall under a Constitutional right, but rather a right that is associated with good fiscal public policy.

Of course, this sort of analysis, isn't popular since it contradicts certain aspects of both major movements. My classmates were also quick to contest the viewpoint, which is fine, but it was just discouraging to see everyone need to conform to the viewpoints of a dominant political movement rather than formulate their own perspective by analyzing the merits and downfalls of these major viewpoints, among other perspectives. Further, most of these claims were mere truisms, "because it's wrong."

Further, Scarf brought up an excellent justification in that it's not just "choice" for the woman's freedoms, but goes into as to why lack of choice has negative impacts, rather than simply stating that choice is an inalienable right or an entitlement without any justification. Similarly, those who are against abortion procedures often claim, it's wrong, against God's will, it could have been a child, ect. Though, I am sure there are some arguments against abortive procedures that don't rely on baseless truisms, but I have yet to come across any that are compelling enough to change my prospective on what is the more effective discourse for public policy.

Sidenote, congrats on making it through one day without any petty or bitter arguments thread! This is a PC-abortion-topic first

Abortion isn't really a thing that involves me so I'll leave the debates to people who actually care.

Related:
@Umbryan, your original post likens abortion to body modification. Which I think is an interesting side-note. I mean scarification is a thing, could abortions become a new fashion trend? Get preggaz and cut it out?

Sub-related:
Assuming the multiverse theory were proven and correct, there is a universe in which abortion is currently a thing.

Well I'm gonna post my opinion of abortion, how I feel about it and how it could affect my life.

First of all I dislike the idea of aborting a life, even if it's considered "for the better." Put aside religious beliefs and that of it like that baby inside of a woman COULD be a child, it has the chance to be alive and have a future, regardless of whether or not you wish to be a parent of that child or whether or not it is biologically yours in the first place. You're playing God by choosing whether it lives or dies.
Do we have the right to make that decision ?
I don't feel I have the right to make that decision.

If I may paraphrase, you feel that a fetus could become a child and therefore we shouldn't take away that chance prematurely. Is that about right?

That kind of idea makes me want to propose a counter idea: a fetus could grow up to suffer horribly. Who are we to risk that? I guess that's not really a new idea. It's the one that says that the circumstances of the mother affect (to varying degrees based on your view) what kind of life the child will have.

It depends...i believe if it's a relationship and it just happened by chance,they should've take the responsibility of their acts as every action has a reaction!! they should see it comin since they well you know...they either be careful or they stand up and take the results of their acts

about the women who got raped this is the case i believe abortion needed cuz not only she was raped but also have a child from the person who kinda kill her!! it would be too much i wouldn't blame her if she hated the child cuz he\she will keep reminding her of what happened..which i never wish it happens to me or to any girl..God protects us all from that!!

__________________

A Caterpie may change into a Butterfree, but the heart that beats inside remains the same.Brock – Pokemonღღღ

I really don't like the idea of abortion. It does sound like ctrl-z to me. And while some things deserve to be undone, hell, people used to live with accidents for hundreds of years. I feel that the "suffering child" argument should be qualified with the thought that we're discussing this issue in the setting of a Western country - so suffering horribly is not quite "suffering horribly" as you might imagine. Many brilliant people come out of working class families, and many people don't - that's a fact of life, but being raised by a single mom with three jobs wouldn't fall under my definition of suffering. And that's not to say that the father is exempt from responsibility, either. A possible acid test for me would be to ask if the parent(s) is/are suffering - then the baby will surely suffer (homeless, whatnot). I'm just suspicious of how far the suffering argument goes in my books. I also feel that it is pre-emptive to say a child will have a life of suffering and to call it a risk. Sometimes the hard life is the meaningful one. Life is complex and calling a hard life "suffering" is a bit one-dimensional in my opinion (where would my hip hop music be without a life of suffering haha). It's a bit rich coming from me, but it still sounds valid in my head.

That being said, my moral beliefs are my own. Technology is a thing, and if people are able to do whatever they want to do then they will do it. People abort because they can, and because without societal barriers, in the sense of material resources it is the easy way out. If you look at the world mechanistically, there is no reason that women should not abort. It is also the easy way out at the state level. Western countries need a highly skilled workforce that is the product of many years of intense education and care. Without that we would have an increasing pool of unskilled, obsolete labour that would probably end up contributing to crime and unrest. A workforce has to be competitive, and we cannot have surplus, low-quality workers dragging us down. And so the state that permits abortions and makes them relatively accessible has decided that abortions are a net benefit to society and there would then be no reason for the state not to permit abortions.

This is all I have to bring to the discussion at the moment, but my primary critique is still directed at this talk of "suffering". The fact that a child should be aborted because it is "unwanted" speaks to me chock full of individualism. To emphasize, I think there is a huge problem that an abortion should occur because the child is unwanted. That because at some point in time a potential child is declared "unwanted", this should condemn its life to rejection from its own mother. For a virtuous first reaction would be embracing this child, not rejecting it.

But why embracing? The first thing I can say is that an utter rejection on the grounds of calling it "unwanted" is surely not a virtuous act. So is embracing an "unwanted" child consequently the more virtuous action or is it possibly even worse? Embracing a fellow human being is generally a virtuous act, I think we can all agree on that - unless what follows is that said human being ends up in a trash dump or rotting in the gutter. So from this short interjection, it makes sense to me that rejecting an unborn child out of its "unwantedness" is not the right thing to do.

But what significance does right and wrong have next to can and cannot?

Also, everybody has the right to sex. Nobody's right to sex is taken away until the police knock at your door and get you for sodomy (which is so last century) A state that does not allow abortions does not take away the right to sex. Everybody has the right to sex and the responsibilities that come out of it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Also, the people whose contraception costs are preventing them from putting food on the table should really have less sex. If you can't pay the bills, you should kind of put exercising your right to sex on the backburner. We have the right to tell anybody whatever we want - especially if it makes sense. It's their right to do whatever they like and their responsibility to clean up the mess. Just wanted to clear that up, I don't think we live in an individualist utopia yet.

On one hand, I support the point of a woman deciding and being able to do whatever she wants with her body. On the other hand, I think if someone is capable of making the decision to have sex, they should face the consequences that come with it. (I also believe that for the father as well.) If they aren't in a place to have and raise a child, then they should put that child up for adoption.

Though, I also don't agree that adoption is the answer to unwanted pregnancy, especially since the overwhelming majority of children in foster care are unloved and un-nurtured growing up, and that leaves very deep psychological scars and problems for them emotionally. It's not an environment someone should have to grow up in, fueled with the thoughts that a) their own parents didn't want them, and b) nobody does.

Additionally, I recognize that having sex is something a lot of people just do for pure pleasure and fun... on the other hand, I'm one of those people who believe that sex's first function should be in reproduction, and I don't support the whole "You should have worn a condom if you didn't want to have a baby." argument, because I've always been of the belief that the solitary function that condoms had were originally created not to reduce pregnancy, but to reduce the spread of STDs.

I also don't like the idea of cutting a life short. Adversely, I define life as what the dictionary defines life: the moment of birth (defined as the emergence from the womb) to the moment of death.

I think it's kinda cheap for men to say that a woman should be able to accept all the consequences for sex. Honestly, it isn't the man who ends up stuck with the baby. If the government said that the father is legally required to help the mother financially, that would be one thing, but notice how nobody is racing to make that law. For some reason, men think that women should handle the burden of children completely alone. That's what's really frustrating about the abortion debate. A bunch of men making decisions for women without even attempting to see a woman's side.

Not to mention the damage to a woman's body from pregnancy and child birth. Pregnancy is the number one killer of women in the world. Right after it is child birth. Abortion is a safe alternative to putting people who aren't ready for pregnancy through a massive ordeal that may claim their life. Nobody on the pro-life side thinks about that. Not to mention, all of the babies that will be flooding into the foster care system. Our foster care is already bursting at the seams. It'll only get worse. Who is going to take care of these children? Who is going to feed them? Give them an education? Most importantly: raise them to be functioning members of society? No one.

Maternity mortality rates, at least in the Western world, is mostly at around the lower double and single digits per 100,000. The fact that pregnancy is the number one killer of women, as you say, speaks volumes to the advancement of humanity as a civilization. If pregnancy is dangerous it is only because we have made other mortal threats less dangerous, what with disease and policing.

For reference's sake, here is a passage from the CDC's website for reproductive health:

Quote:

Sadly, about 650 women die each year in the United States as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications.

Your argument is very post-human - how far does that go? Pregnancy and its risks are natural and they've always been around. You describe it as damage and a killer - but the reality as it has been for hundreds of millions of years is offspring emerging from a female's orifice. Sure it is painful and there is a risk, but should we desire such a separation from nature? and is it realistic? Personally, I don't think it's desirable to race towards a separation of humanity from its physical limits and sensations, I'm of the opinion that it is part of what makes us human.

Should the man involved be compelled to provide for a child's rearing? My inner justice says yes. But in the land of freedom and liberties probably only the most conservative of folks would advocate such a policy. How would one enforce such a policy? Should a man be compelled to provide DNA (I'd imagine some form of evidence would be required)? Should he have the right to refuse? I'm not too confident on the aspect of compelling a person to give up evidence on suspicion alone.

Quote:

Not to mention, all of the babies that will be flooding into the foster care system. Our foster care is already bursting at the seams. It'll only get worse. Who is going to take care of these children? Who is going to feed them? Give them an education? Most importantly: raise them to be functioning members of society? No one.

I'd imagine before saying "no one", we would imagine that the parents responsible for the baby will step up to the responsibility of taking care of it. Again, the assumption here seems to be that because the baby is unwanted to the parents, they're already out of the whole equation. Any discussion that follows is bound to be fruitless if proposing that the biological parents take responsibility is a non-starter.

I advocate for abortions, but out of safety - if a woman wants to have abortion and she sees to it, nobody is going to stop her, so it is imperative she has a safe way out. Abortion isn't the most virtuous of decisions most of the time for me though. I don't support it out of principle, but as a pragmatic solution to reduce suffering.

We're talking about people who want abortions, so yeah... Most people who want abortions have unwanted pregnancies. Your assumption that the majority of parents will just "step up" is based on what exactly?

If a woman in your world has to take care of every baby she gets pregnant with, why wouldn't it be fair that every man has to as well? You suddenly think it'll infringe upon the man's freedom? But it's okay to infringe on women's rights? Women have the right to freedom too.

Abortion, as I see it, is like this.
You sign up to audition for a play, get a lead role, then drop it, because you can't handle the responsibility. If you know you can't make it to practices, etc, don't sign up.

Plus, the option of adoption is there.

That's just my two cents.

__________________

I like Sandshrews. A lot. I am Sandshrews number 1 fan. And don't you deny it.
My friend code for White 2 is 4857 7379 4725

Abortion, as I see it, is like this.
You sign up to audition for a play, get a lead role, then drop it, because you can't handle the responsibility. If you know you can't make it to practices, etc, don't sign up.

When you get older, you're going to want to have sex. That's a fair arguement if you didn't use any protection but if you did and it failes from the small % chance then your point is moot, as you're doing the most humanly possible to have safe sex.

Even so, i'm all for pro womans choice, if a 16 year old girl firetrucks every guy in a school unprotected and just happens to get pregnant than she should still have the option to get an abortion. In my eyes the fetus is not alive and she is doing the world a favour by getting rid of a child she isn't prepared to care for. A part of nature is avoiding having offspring you can't take care of, kangaroos don't mate in severe drought and lambs are born in spring, why? To avoid giving birth when it's not sustainable. Of course animals mate purely for reproduction whilst we do it for pleasure, so we have a lot more need for abortions if raising a child is not a viable option.

I'm also of the view that by not having children you can't care for you're doing society and the planet a big favour, too many people is really going to put strain on resources in the future. Of course I don't think that everyone should stop having kids but there should be restrictions or penalties for having too many kids, especially if you can't afford them, and abortions should always be available

EDIT: Even if you're fully capable of caring a child it's still in my eyes the parents choice as to whether they want to go through with it. Also I don't see abortion as playing god but rather being in charge of your own life (I don't consider the fetus a life yet)

__________________

Want to lose brain cells? What do you do? Alcohol, heroin, repeatedly bashing your head against a brick wall? Try tumblr

Abortion, as I see it, is like this.
You sign up to audition for a play, get a lead role, then drop it, because you can't handle the responsibility. If you know you can't make it to practices, etc, don't sign up.

The PokéCommunity

Meta

Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.